DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Liquid Gas Containment Systems.
Does applicant realize that a sub-atmospheric pressure (vacuum) is being claimed in claim 8? The Office can’t agree to a title that is incorrect.
Claim Interpretation
The phrase “disposed around” means that an element or object is being placed on the outside of another element. This is a normal convention when speaking of a container or tank for fluids such as liquified gas and assigning an order to and location of the layers. For example, claims 1 and 2 abide by this convention and recite the layer in order from inside to outside.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The phrase “disposed around” means that an element or object is being placed on the outside of another element. For example, in claim 9, line 3, stating “a first insulation layer disposed around the first membrane” means that the first insulation layer is placed on the outside of the first membrane. Note, for example, that claims 1 and 2 are more understandable and follow a convention of reciting the layers in order from inside to outside.
Claim 9 states in line 6 that “a first intermediate shell disposed around the first insulation layer.” Claim 9 states in lines 6 and 7 that “the first intermediate shell is disposed between the first membrane and the first insulation layer,” this contradict the statement in line 6 because it means that the first intermediate shell is not disposed on the outside of the first insulation layer. Claim 9 is indefinite. This same type of confusion also exists for claims 11 and 12 where claim 11 places the second intermediate shell around (on the outside thereof) the second insulation layer. Claim 12 states that the second intermediate shell is disposed between the second membrane and the second insulation layer which would be on the inside of the second insulation layer. Claim 12 is indefinite.
Claim 20 is indefinite. The first wherein clause beginning in line 1 is broader than the second wherein clause beginning in line 3. This only makes claim 20 confusing as to whether applicant intended a broader recitation of a number of different adhesives or did applicant intend the narrower interpretation of an epoxy adhesive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Blair et al. (US 2007/0289974) (Blair).
Blair discloses a liquid gas transport container (see paragraph [12], lines 5-8 recite “a shell/insulation/shell/insulation/shell arrangement) comprising: a first membrane (inner shell of three shell arrangement) defining a cavity; a first insulation layer disposed around the first membrane, the first insulation layer comprising a first closed-cell insulation material, wherein the first closed-cell insulation material comprises a first syntactic foam (all syntactic foam is closed cell by definition, see paragraph [17], line 12); a backing material (intermediate shell or outer shell of three shell arrangement) disposed around the first insulation layer; and a hull (see paragraph [14], lines 3-6 recite a double hull) disposed around the backing material.
Re claim 2, further comprising: a second membrane disposed around the first insulation layer; and a second insulation layer disposed around the second membrane, the second insulation layer comprising a second closed-cell insulation material (all syntactic foam is closed cell by definition, see paragraph [17], line 12).
Re claim 3, the second closed-cell insulation material comprises a second syntactic foam (all syntactic foam is closed cell by definition, see paragraph [17], line 12).
Re claims 5 and 6, these claims state atmospheric pressure (1 atm) which is assumed when there is no statement about vacuum.
Re claim 7, wherein the first membrane comprises one or more corrugations (see paragraph [14], lines 11-13) , wherein the one or more corrugations comprise a first membrane cavity disposed between the first membrane and the first insulation layer.
Claim(s) 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Wei et al. (US 2022/0146045) (Wei).
Wei discloses a liquid gas transport container as shown in Fig. 1 comprising: a first membrane (10) defining a cavity; a first insulation layer (first insulating panel 4) disposed around the first membrane, the first insulation layer comprising a first closed-cell insulation material; a backing material (fourth support panel 9) disposed around the first insulation layer; a first intermediate shell (metallic shielding membrane 6) disposed around the first insulation layer, wherein the first intermediate shell is disposed between the first membrane and the first insulation layer, and wherein the first intermediate shell is disposed between the first insulation layer and the backing material; and a hull (1) disposed around the backing material.
Re claim 15, further comprising a membrane support layer (third support panel 7) disposed between the first intermediate shell and the first membrane.
Claim(s) 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Deletre et al. (AU 2014252951) (Deletre).
Deletre discloses a liquid gas transport container as shown in Fig. 8 comprising: a first membrane (24) defining a cavity; a first insulation layer (pad 1 within layers 24) disposed around the first membrane, the first insulation layer comprising a first closed-cell insulation material (pad 1, see page 3, lines 8-9); a backing material (21, 22, or resin beads below panels of secondary insulation layer 21 and for compensating local defect of carrying wall 20) disposed around the first insulation layer; a first intermediate shell (cover panel 13 and bottom panel 14) disposed around the first insulation layer, wherein the first intermediate shell is disposed between (13) the first membrane and the first insulation layer, and wherein the first intermediate shell is disposed between (14) the first insulation layer and the backing material; and a hull (72) disposed around the backing material.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blair in view of Simpson et al. (US 11518917) (Simpson).
Blair fails to disclose the hollow microspheres of the syntactic foam. Simpson teaches a syntactic foam having hollow glass microspheres (HGM) 3, 5; the larger spheres 3 have an outer diameter of 120 micrometers and smaller spheres 5 have an outer diameter of 20 micrometers. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute the syntactic foam having HGM as taught by Simpson to provide an insulation that is lighter in weight and has a greater R value.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blair in view of CN 114198633 (Chinese document).
Blair fails to disclose a vacuum or sub-atmospheric pressure between the first membrane and the first insulation layer. The Chinese document teaches a vacuum chamber between outer shell 400 and corrugated layer 300 forming the inner shell of the vacuum chamber. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a vacuum or sub-atmospheric pressure between the first membrane and the first insulation layer to further insulate the cryogenic content.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deletre.
Deletre discloses two sequences of sealing barrier, intermediate shell and insulating barrier. Claims 10-12 add this same sequence of layers as a secondary layer arrangement. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide another tertiary layer arrangement to provide a sealing barrier, intermediate shell and insulating barrier in sequence to further seal, support and insulate the wall structure of the tank.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei in view of WO 2017/018699 (the WIPO document).
Re claim 13, Wei discloses a polyurethane insulating material and fails to disclose one of the listed insulating materials of claim 13. The WIPO document teaches a vacuum space with a heat shielding made of aluminized Mylar with a thickness of 1-2 cm (10-20 mm). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute a different insulating material, aluminized Mylar, for the polyurethane of Wei as a better radiant heat barrier to prevent radiant heat for intruding and warming the cryogenic contents of the tank.
Re claim 14, the thickness of the WIPO documents insulating material is within the stated thickness of about 0.1 to about 10 mm.
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei in view of Allen et al. (WO 03/072684) (Allen).
Wei fails to disclose an adhesive. Allen teaches a cryogenic epoxy. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add adhesive, specifically, a membrane adhesive and cryogenic epoxy adhesive between the membrane support layer and the first intermediate shell to prevent layer-to-layer movement, shifting and misalignment which would adversely affect the insulation and sealing performance of the layers.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei in view of Reed et al. (US 3159005) (Reed).
Wei fails to disclose whether an insulation adhesive is being used. Reed teaches the use of an insulation adhesive (adhesive compatible with insulation materials, “epoxy resin cement,” to secure a flexible membrane layer to insulation of a tank for low temperature service (liquefied petroleum gases, cryogenic). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add adhesive, specifically, a cryogenic epoxy adhesive between the first intermediate shell and the first insulation layer to prevent layer-to-layer movement, shifting and misalignment which would adversely affect the insulation and sealing performance of the layers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J CASTELLANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4535. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
sjc/STEPHEN J CASTELLANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733